 |
PDBsum entry 1gxk
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chromosome segregation
|
PDB id
|
|
|
|
1gxk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Contents |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Residue conservation analysis
|
|
|
|
|
References listed in PDB file
|
 |
|
Key reference
|
 |
|
Title
|
 |
Molecular architecture of smc proteins and the yeast cohesin complex.
|
 |
|
Authors
|
 |
C.H.Haering,
J.Löwe,
A.Hochwagen,
K.Nasmyth.
|
 |
|
Ref.
|
 |
Mol Cell, 2002,
9,
773-788.
[DOI no: ]
|
 |
|
PubMed id
|
 |
|
 |
 |
|
Abstract
|
 |
|
Sister chromatids are held together by the multisubunit cohesin complex, which
contains two SMC (Smc1 and Smc3) and two non-SMC (Scc1 and Scc3) proteins. The
crystal structure of a bacterial SMC "hinge" region along with EM
studies and biochemical experiments on yeast Smc1 and Smc3 proteins show that
SMC protamers fold up individually into rod-shaped molecules. A 45 nm long
intramolecular coiled coil separates the hinge region from the ATPase-containing
"head" domain. Smc1 and Smc3 bind to each other via heterotypic
interactions between their hinges to form a V-shaped heterodimer. The two heads
of the V-shaped dimer are connected by different ends of the cleavable Scc1
subunit. Cohesin therefore forms a large proteinaceous loop within which sister
chromatids might be entrapped after DNA replication.
|
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Figure 3.
Figure 3. Smc1/3 Dimerization Specificity Is Solely
Conferred by the Hinge Domains(A) The hinge domain is necessary
for Smc1/3 dimerization. Smc1Δhinge or Smc1 were coexpressed
with His[6]Smc3 in insect cells and subjected to a pull-down
assay on Ni^2+-NTA. The presence of Smc1Δhinge or Smc1 in input
(I), unbound (U), and bound (B) fractions was probed by
immunoblotting with an antibody specific to the N terminus of
Smc1 (upper panel) and the efficiency of Smc3 binding to the
resin with anti-His antibody (lower panel).(B) Only molecules
with opposite hinge domains can dimerize. Smc1, HA[3]Smc3, or
Smc1hinge3 were coexpressed in insect cells with either
His[6]Smc3 or His[6]Smc3hinge1, and protein association of each
combination was assayed as in (A).(C) Electron micrographs of
the Smc3hinge1/Smc3 dimer. The His[6]Smc3hinge1/ HA[3]Smc3 dimer
was purified from insect cells over Ni^2+-NTA and gel
filtration. Proteins in the peak fraction from the gel
filtration were rotary shadowed with a 2 nm platinum layer and
visualized in the electron microscope.(D) The hinge domain of
Smc3 is sufficient for binding to Smc1. N-terminal, hinge, and
C-terminal globular domains of Smc3 were coexpressed with Smc1
in insect cells as HA[3]-tagged proteins. The globular domains
were immunoprecipitated and their ability to pull down Smc1 was
tested by immunoblotting for Smc1 (upper panel). Full-length
HA[3]Smc3 was used as a positive control. In addition, the
association of the HA[3]Smc3hinge domain with Smc1hinge3 was
tested. In all experiments, the efficiency of the
HA[3]-immunoprecipitation was tested by blotting against the
HA[3] epitope (lower panel).(E) The Smc3hinge domain binds Smc1
as tightly as the full-length Smc3 protein does. HA[3]Smc3 or
the HA[3]Smc3hinge domain produced in insect cells was bound to
a CM5 sensor chip on the BIAcore system via a monoclonal anti-HA
antibody attached to covalently linked anti-mouse Fc γ-specific
antibody. Insect cell extracts containing defined concentrations
of Smc1 as the ligand (five dilutions, ranging from 20 nM to 200
nM) were floated over the bound analytes, and association and
dissociation kinetics were recorded. For each dilution, the data
were fitted using a 1:1 Langmuir binding model with drifting
baseline and corrected for unspecific binding to uninfected
insect cell extracts. The average association and dissociation
rate constants (k[a] and k[d], respectively) are displayed and
used to calculate the equilibrium binding constant (K[A]).
Low average values of χ^2 indicate the accuracy of the fit and
the suitability of the 1:1 binding model, the variation
coefficients ν for the binding constants show the consistency
of the measurements over the ligand dilution range.(F) Crystal
structure of the hinge domain from Thermotoga maritima SMC
protein (construct HTMC9, residues 473-685). Ribbon drawing of
the hinge domain dimer, showing two stretches of antiparallel
coiled coil (yellow and green). The orientation is essentially
the same as in Figure 1B. The coiled coil segments are formed by
residues from the same chain, resulting in an intramolecular
coiled coil arrangement for SMC proteins. The structure shown
was re-solved in spacegroup C2 by seleno-methionine substitution
and MAD at 3.0 Å resolution.(G) Architecture of SMC
proteins. The intramolecular coiled coil results in the two arms
being formed by separate chains with the hinge domains holding
the two arms together. The coiled coil segments have been
modeled using standard geometry and the crystal structures of
the hinge and head domains have been described here and
elsewhere (Löwe et al., 2001). Figure prepared using
MOLSCRIPT (Kraulis P.J., 1991).
|
 |
Figure 8.
Figure 8. Model of the Yeast Cohesin Complex(A) Smc1 and
Smc3 form a heterodimer with intramolecular coiled coils. Scc1
bridges the head domains of Smc1 and Smc3 and links them to
Scc3. For comparison, a schematic 10 nm chromatin fiber of DNA
wrapped around nucleosomes and a DNA double helix are shown in
scale to the Smc1/3 ring.(B) Hypothetical “embrace” model of
how the cohesin complex might confer sister chromatid cohesion.
Before the commencement of replication, the cohesin complex is
loaded onto DNA. The arms of the Smc1/3 molecules embrace the
DNA, thereby forming a ring of approx. 40 nm diameter. The head
domains of Smc1 and Smc3 are locked together by Scc1. Now,
cohesion might be generated as the replication fork passes
through the ring, entrapping both sister chromatids inside. At
the metaphase to anaphase transition, Scc1 is cleaved by
separase, thereby opening the lock of the Smc1/3 head domains.
The ring opens and sister chromatids can be pulled to opposite
spindle poles.
|
 |
|
 |
 |
|
The above figures are
reprinted
by permission from Cell Press:
Mol Cell
(2002,
9,
773-788)
copyright 2002.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |